The prominent coverage that was given (June 5) to the spectacular initial results of new molecularly-targeted drugs against melanoma skin cancer that had spread to other vital organs raises some difficult questions.

Apart from the good news of how these anti-cancer drugs switch on the patient’s immune system, which the cancer was previously able to evade (although the cancer may unfortunately re-learn how to evade it), the bad news is that these new drugs are usually very expensive and health services around the world may not always fund them, unless the results are impressive and long-lasting enough to be considered cost-effective.

This brings us to our own problem. It is not uncommon for doctors to recommend to patients a new very expensive medicine for their serious chronic disease and which is not provided free on the health service. Apart from the initial shock and anxiety about how they can’t afford the recommended drug, patients then have to plead with the President’s Community Chest Fund, hoping this charity would at least partly fund their medicine.

Although the Community Chest Fund does a great job, it’s actually covering up the inadequacy of our supposedly comprehensive free health service. This is a serious problem which is bound to get worse if funding of the health service is not increased.

At the root of the problem is the fact that rate of national insurance contributions in place is insufficient to pay for both a comprehensive health service as well as an adequate pension system.

Furthermore, the government does not enjoy the income from an annual tax on land or property prices as most other countries in Europe benefit from.

Needless to say, the latter two taxation points are unmentionables. They are, quite rightly, regarded as political suicide by both major parties. But, then, perhaps these are some of the reasons why the European Commission seems unconvinced by our country’s ‘business plan’ for the foreseeable future.